Now we can go forward together, each respecting each others view point. Be allowed in our own individual way and experience to express and show the Love of God revealed in Jesus Christ to our fellow human beings.

Fr John Emlyn

Posted by Fr John E. Harris-White at
Thursday, 8 June 2017 at 5:22pm BST

Hear, hear Father John.

I'm with you !

Posted by Laurie Roberts at
Thursday, 8 June 2017 at 5:45pm BST

Wonderful news. A true sign that God's Pentecost(al) spirit still breathes new life and energy into the Scottish Episcopal Church. Proud to be a Piskie today!

Posted by Michael Paterson at
Thursday, 8 June 2017 at 6:28pm BST

Just looking at the numbers. For a canon that purports to "let everyone do what is good in their own eyes" it is striking that a full third of clergy still voted against it. That means there is considerable division within the clerical ranks of the SEC. Even with their "conscience protected" they did not agree with it and voted against it.

Also, there must be two vacancies in the SEC HOB. Presumably +Bob Gillies in Aberdeen voted against it. But only five are noted as having voted for it.

Unremarkable, one supposes. So no one really knows? In such a tiny church context?

I believe there are around 1200 average Sunday attendance in the entire SEC. I welcome correction.

I would be curious about the number of parishes in the Anglican Network and their Sunday attendance.

Posted by crs at
Friday, 9 June 2017 at 5:37pm BST

Professor Seitz comments regularly on this and other sites about the 'tinyness' of the SEC. I don't know where his figure of 1200 comes from but given the fact the regular Sunday congregation at St Mary's cathedral in Edinburgh is about 100 I suspect it is a gross underestimate. But why is size relevant other than as a reason to dismiss the significance of the SEC's decision? And why cannot the secret ballot be respected? I was in the public gallery for the debate and I was most impressed by the gracious and respectful way in which it was conducted. If the SEC is in fact tiny, it is no way going to disappear.

Posted by Daniel Lamont at
Friday, 9 June 2017 at 11:08pm BST

+Bob has already retired. One bishop abstained.

Posted by Kennedy Fraser at
Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 7:34am BST

Daniel Lamont I mention it because 30% of clergy opposing this; and with several of the largest parishes ready to leave, affects the state of the SEC is very significant ways. It becomes very difficult to support a bishop, e.g., unless they have supplemental income from somewhere. I lived in St Andrews for nine years and am aware of the fragility of the situation.

I hope this clarifies. I take no delight in seeing an important province shrinking.

The numbers for Sunday attendance are available in SEC documents.

Posted by cseitz at
Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 2:44pm BST

PS--I do think my number is too low. I have studied this in the past. 1200 is the figure for the ASA of the American 'diocese' in Europe.

I believe the total membership of the SEC is 28K. ASA could be 10K. The main point remains, however. When you are small splintering off is disproportionately felt.

Posted by crs at
Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 2:56pm BST

I note what Professor Seitz says and that Archbishop Idowu-Fearon thinks that the SEC yis in decline. I don't think that it is as simple as that: the causes are complex and there are suggestions that the decline has begun to be halted.

I am a glass half-full man and I see that 68% of the clergy and 80% of the laity voted for the change to the Canon. The requirements for a two-thirds majority in all three houses is a very high standard to meet and it was met. The Brexit vote with all its consequences only required 50% + 1. You cannot, I think, infer, from the bare fact alone that 30% of the clergy voted against will necessarily seek alternative oversight.

I write from the standpoint of someone who lives in Scotland and I am conscious of the immense changes taking place which I think you only really understand if you live here now rather than returning as a visitor, having lived here in the past. For example, three of the five leaders of the main Scottish parties are women and three of them are gay and it simply isn't an issue. Moreover, the Church of Scotland is having parallel discussions about equal marriage. These are huge cultural changes.

I also write as someone who witnessed the debate. It was a highly emotionally charged occasion.It is premature to draw conclusions about churches leaving. What is needed is for the participants, epecially the clergy, is to pray, reflect on the changes, speak to colleagues, their Vestries and congregations and allow time for the implications of the vote to sink in. There are very powerful 'conscience clauses'. This is no time for precipitate and hasty action. I was very interested to learn that ordinands coming from evangelical congregations were not necessarily hostile to equal marriage. I have read a certain amount of the literature on equal marriage and various commentaries in the social media. I am unable to understand why two integrities are acceptable on the issues of the ordination of women but are not acceptable on the issue of equal marrage.

Thank you for your comment. For clarification, as blogs often overextend things.

I did not say that 32% of clergy would seek alternative oversight. I was noting that this is a high percentage given the assertion that the canonical change was anodyne and protects everyone's individual conscience. One might have assumed clergy would be reassured and would go ahead and vote OK.

Of the parishes in the Anglican Network, I don't think they have changed much from my leaving in 2007. P's and G's is pretty independent and may decide what happens in the SEC doesn't matter. St Thomas is another story as is Westhill and maybe St Silas.

I don't suspect those who leave think of themselves as a presyterian enclave as in your examples, but as connected to the Anglican Communion, for which there is no presbyterian analogy. It is the anglican communion which is reconfiguring, not cranky individual churches in the history of Scottish Christianity.

You have raised a topic I was not thinking about, in regard to the clergy voting No. I was obviously not present. If they rejected the conscience clause idea I wonder what they have in view?

Sunday blessings.

Posted by crs at
Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 8:16am BST

Apologies for typos. The combination of dodgy eyesight and using a tablet in poor light is not good.

Posted by Daniel Lamont at
Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 9:30am BST

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?YesNoComments:

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to
the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill
the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select
'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No
third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical,
advertising, or other purposes.